Can you Spot the Difference?
A long time ago, I saw a checklist of things that identified conspiracy theorist wackos. They were elements which differentiated someone serious about an idea from someone who was a fanatic and it got me thinking that there isn’t much difference between a conspiracy nutjob and a religious one. In fact, the checklist lines up perfectly across the board. So today I went looking for that checklist and found a similar one, originally posted here. Here are eleven characteristics of conspiracy theorists, tell me that they’re not equally applicable to theists.
1. Initiated on the basis of limited, partial or circumstantial evidence;
Conceived in reaction to media reports and images, as opposed to, for example, thorough knowledge of the relevant forensic evidence.
If that doesn’t describe religion, I don’t know what does! Religion is nothing but limited, partial or circumstantial evidence at best, most of the time it isn’t even that. Like many conspiracy theories, religion is little more than wishful thinking, wrapped in empty claims and tied up with absurd beliefs unsupported by the merest shred of evidence.
2. Addresses an event or process that has broad historical or emotional impact;
Seeks to interpret a phenomenon which has near-universal interest and emotional significance, a story that may thus be of some compelling interest to a wide audience.
Most certainly, religion fits in here nicely. What emotional impact? How about fear of death? Fear of the unknown? Need to be watched over? They take these basic human fears and wrap their theological bullshit around them in an attempt to make their stories more attractive. Don’t want to die? We’ll spin a cock-and-bull story about how you live forever! It doesn’t really make any sense if you think about it, but you’re supposed to just believe! Have faith! Ignore reality and pretend it’s true!
3. Reduces morally complex social phenomena to simple, immoral actions;
Impersonal, institutional processes, especially errors and oversights, interpreted as malign, consciously intended and designed by immoral individuals.
Like, I don’t know, a simple list of 10 commandments? They expect that all human morality can be boiled down to the contents of a single bronze-age book and won’t listen to reason.
4. Personifies complex social phenomena as powerful individual conspirators;
Related to (3) but distinct from it, deduces the existence of powerful individual conspirators from the ‘impossibility’ that a chain of events lacked direction by a person.
This happens all the time. Whenever something doesn’t go the theist’s way, they say people are out to get them, or they’re being oppressed, or, my personal favorite, the devil is testing them.
5. Allots superhuman talents or resources to conspirators;
May require conspirators to possess unique discipline, unrepentant resolve, advanced or unknown technology, uncommon psychological insight, historical foresight, unlimited resources, etc.
We’re back to the devil argument again. Yes, when things go badly, blame the devil. When things go well, credit God. Don’t ever take any personal responsibility for your actions, everything that happens is the fault of supernatural forces beyond your control.
6. Key steps in argument rely on inductive, not deductive reasoning;
Inductive steps are mistaken to bear as much confidence as deductive ones.
While inductive reasoning isn’t always bad, it is making assumptions based on a limited data set and then generalizing said data to the larger world. It can be useful if applied carefully but for theists, there is rarely any care ever applied to it’s usage. An example of bad inductive reasoning might go as follows:
1. All birds can fly.
2. An ostrich is a bird.
3. Therefore an ostrich can fly.
I think we can all see where the problem here lies, the fact is, not all birds can fly. However, if one’s only experience is with flying birds and one accepts the premise as accurate, one can certainly logically induce the conclusion, the conclusion just doesn’t happen to be true. Unfortunately, this is really the same place the religious go wrong, but instead of dealing with experience, they tend to assume based on current belief. Because they believe something is true, they draw general conclusions that require their beliefs to be true. The problem is, they’ve never established their beliefs as true, any more than our example established that all birds can fly. It’s a perfectly valid logical structure with an entirely faulty premise and therefore a completely false conclusion. But don’t think you can tell them that, they’re not interested. As far as they’re concerned, they believe it, that settles it. Rationality doesn’t enter into it.
Appeals to ‘common sense’;
Common sense steps substitute for the more robust, academically respectable methodologies available for investigating sociological and scientific phenomena.
I’m not sure if this was intended as a 12th criteria or not so I’ll just address it as it is presented. How can anyone deny this is a common characteristic of religion? It most often appears as a form of the “fallacy from personal incredulity”, the idea that because they don’t understand how it could be different, their beliefs must be true.
7. Exhibits well-established logical and methodological fallacies;
Formal and informal logical fallacies are readily identifiable among the key steps of the argument.
Christian apologetics is full of these well-known fallacies that continue to surface even though they are well known as being faulty. Everything from Pascal’s Wager to Anselm’s Ontological Argument are chock-full of logical errors, but even when informed of them and shown exactly where the reasoning is wrong, apologists refuse to change. They’re not really interested in the truth, just in pushing their particular theological agenda and if lying to people will suck them in, that’s fine and dandy with them.
8. Is produced and circulated by ‘outsiders’, often anonymous, and generally lacking peer review;
Story originates with a person who lacks any insider contact or knowledge, and enjoys popularity among persons who lack critical (especially technical) knowledge.
Certainly this is the case anywhere that religion comes into conflict with established science. Think creationism, or it’s bastard brother intelligent design. If you remember last year’s theatrical disaster Expelled!, you’ll remember the big deal they made about their followers being “outsiders” who were denied access to funding, jobs or students. Yes, some of them were, but not because of their absurd beliefs, but because they violated ethics codes, taught nonsense as science and didn’t do the jobs they had been hired to perform. They even admit they’re outsiders, they’re proud of it.
9. Is upheld by persons with demonstrably false conceptions of relevant science;
At least some of the story’s believers believe it on the basis of a mistaken grasp of elementary scientific facts.
How many times have we heard entirely nonsensical arguments, especially from the creationists, which are well known as being false, but they cling to it anyhow. Creation in 4004 BC? Worldwide flood? Sun standing still in the sky? All of these, as events, have been entirely disproven, in fact even suggesting that they are possible displays a gross ignorance of relevant science, yet these are some of the ideas that the religious fundamentalists want to push into the public schools.
10. Enjoys zero credibility in expert communities;
Academics and professionals tend to ignore the story, treating it as too frivolous to invest their time and risk their personal authority in disproving.
Creationism. ’nuff said.
11. Rebuttals provided by experts are ignored or accommodated through elaborate new twists in the narrative;
When experts do respond to the story with critical new evidence, the conspiracy is elaborated (sometimes to a spectacular degree) to discount the new evidence, often incorporating the rebuttal as a part of the conspiracy.’
And again, religion doesn’t adopt new knowledge as it becomes available, it continually rejects new findings in favor of old beliefs.
I wanted to add another criteria that I remember from my original list, but which doesn’t appear here, at least in any identifiable form.
12. Conspiracy theorists are supremely convinced they are bringing new information to the world, they want to be regarded as heroes and certainly smarter than those who reject their claims. There’s a certain egocentrism to their beliefs, that they’ve come up with some grand snippet of knowledge that the majority do not have.
Does that sound like the religious to anyone? They’re part of an exclusive club, hold secret knowledge and anyone who refuses to listen is “lost”.
I don’t think there’s any question that there is functionally no difference between conspiracy nutballs and religious nutballs. They both fit into a common mold. So the next time someone tells you about some wild-eyed 9/11 conspiracy or a JFK conspiracy, remember they’re no more crazy than your streetcorner preacher. In fact, they might even be a little more sane.
One Comment to “Can you Spot the Difference?”
Some interesting parallels, for sure. Number 12 fits some fundogelicals like a glove.
Bitchscriptions
Revolt Basic theme by NenadK. | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).